Reader Andrew Perrin writes: While I realize that political campaigns need money, the only messages I seem to get from political campaigns are pleas for money, especially when they’re trying to hit a “month-end deadline” — which I don’t know why. Important I’d rather get texts or emails about policy ideas, what the candidate will do if they win, or even what they’re doing with the money they’re getting. Am I the only candidate who is frustrated by candidates who only seem to care about money when talking to their constituents?
It’s not just you: many people Don’t like being asked for money repeatedly, even if they agree with the cause their donation will support. But as frustrating as the flood of requests for campaign donations via text and email can be, there’s a reason behind these fundraising tactics.
For one, as you point out, campaigns desperately need money. It has become incredibly expensive to run a successful campaign, especially when an incumbent is being challenged. This money can help introduce a candidate and their position to voters.
And the other thing is: asking people for money – even in a hyperbolic way – works. Research suggests that people are much more likely to give to charities when they are asked to do so. Recent history suggests the same is true of political campaigns. Vice President Kamala Harris has been aggressive in soliciting donations; He brought it inside $615 million In the first six weeks since President Joe Biden dropped out of the race. Her campaign has yet to announce her fundraising for September, but she is expected to continue Get over Trump.
That’s not to say that candidates don’t try to engage with their constituents on issues, sometimes even asking for donations in their communications. A candidate’s messaging approach comes down to individual style. But when an election is tight, and the odds are stacked against a candidate, money matters — and candidates may choose to prioritize fundraising appeals over other forms of communication.
So, how expensive is it to run a campaign? And how did we end up with such an expensive election?
In Texas, where I live, the Senate campaign between Democrat Colin Allred and Republican incumbent Ted Cruz has already been incredibly expensive. Allred spent $37 million In the ad, which aired through mid-September, Cruise spent nearly three times as much time. That spending has largely been driven by small donors, with a The average donation amount is about $35. National Democrats think so Allred are likely to winBut despite the fact that Cruz is still in a red state, he will probably have to spend more to do so Persistently low approval ratings.
The high cost of running is partly a function of the fact that Texas is a large state with a population of 30 million, 254 counties and 20 different media markets. The money Allred is raising must support not only advertising, but also campaign staff and volunteer efforts, including organizing events, rallies, data sharing, phone banks, block walking, voter registration, and other get-out-the-vote efforts in the state.
But the higher costs are also the result of a 2010 Supreme Court ruling Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The decision allows corporations and outside groups to spend unlimited money on elections, often through super PACs — a type of fundraising vehicle — that operate independently of campaigns.
Since Citizens UnitedElection costs up and down the ballot have risen sharply: In 2008, the last presidential election before the decision, congressional campaign spending A total of about $3 billionadjusted for inflation; In 2020, a presidential election year, that total is $10 billion.
Research suggests that challengers More profitable than campaign costs than incumbents, and for any candidate, Early spending is more effective than late spending — which may in part inspire campaigns’ sense of urgency as they solicit donations from voters.
Incumbents do not benefit as much from campaign spending because voters often already know who they are and what they stand for. Generally, there isn’t much room to change voters’ minds about it.
Of course, the kind of passionate partisans who often receive grant requests may appreciate the effort to try — such as through policy engagement — but generally, the focus on voter outreach during elections is to keep the money flowing and persuade more motivated voters.
Does bombarding people with fundraising appeals actually work?
If digital advertising agencies don’t succeed in applying for grants by asking repeatedly, they won’t. That said, there is a growing divide in Democratic circles about the best way to go about it.
While fundraising requests focused on urgency is a tried-and-true method, some Democrats are starting to ask whether it might be better, as you suggest, to have a little more policy discussion.
Of late, some firms have been criticized for overly aggressive fundraising strategies. democratic institutions Mothership strategyFor example, the 2022 midterms had a big presence and became notorious for sensational fundraising campaigns that falsely claimed that Republicans were forcing Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg to resign and that voter donations could help “destroy Trump’s extremist Supreme Court.”
These strategies made a lot of money—but they also earned blowback. Democratic candidates cut ties with the firm by April 2023. The firm’s founder, Jack Lipsett, defended the firm’s strategy to Politico Later that year, they say they were able to make a lot of money and that it was “beneficial to the Democratic Party and the progressive movement because it’s having such a big impact on races across the board.”
“If you bombard people with spam emails and texts, if you lie to them and say there’s a fake octuple donor match, if you send them emails and say the sky is falling, it works,” said Democratic consultant Jack Malitz. . Worked on Beto O’Rourke’s 2018 Senate campaign in Texas. “You can scare people into giving money that way. But it does long-term damage to Democrats’ credibility.”
Is there a better way to raise funds?
Hector Sigala, co-founder of Middle Seat, another Democratic digital advertising agency, said there are better ways to contact donors and ask for their support, financial and otherwise.
This may involve describing a candidate’s position and being honest with voters about the role of their donations. Some, but not all, candidates are already doing this.
Sigal’s firm sent an email from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) that flatly acknowledged the “scare tactics” some politicians employ to get voters to donate and said it was not an issue in her campaign: “Instead of guilt you don’t donate enough. To do this, we want our emails to provide value to you. We strive to send informative, educational content.”
The firm also ran an email campaign for Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) in which he explained the significance of his tattoos, linking the artwork to Fetterman’s policy positions: They included dates on which people were killed, some by gun violence, in the city of Braddock. When he was mayor. He outlined how he helped combat violence as mayor and said he would do the same for “every Pennsylvanian” — with the help of grassroots donors.
may provide such communications Record-breaking fundraising numbersSigala said.
“We are treating our supporters like smart people [who] Really give a damn about what we’re talking about,” he said. “It works much better than ‘midnight deadline,’ fake matches and ‘the sky is falling.'”
That said, if my inbox and texts are any indication, Sigal’s Farm remains the exception.
